1   We demonstrated two different models of an intrinsic PEEP lung model.

2 volume air flow, internal lung pressure, and intrinsic PEEP were measured.

3                     The interactions between intrinsic PEEP and externally applied PEEP were differen

4                                  However, if intrinsic PEEP was induced without dynamic airway closur

5        It is unlikely that the difference in intrinsic PEEP between the study groups was clinically i

6 ernal PEEP, both above and below the initial intrinsic PEEP, were applied.

7           In the model with flow limitation, intrinsic PEEP was created by replacing a portion of the

8        In the model without flow limitation, intrinsic PEEP was generated with a fixed linear resisto

9 range, 0-3.1 cm H2O), compared with a median intrinsic PEEP of 0.5 cm H2O (interquartile range, 0-1.5

10 mized to the 6 mL/kg protocol, with a median intrinsic PEEP of 1.3 cm H2O (interquartile range, 0-3.1

11  both study groups, and difference of median intrinsic PEEP between the groups was <1 cm H2O.

12                                The amount of intrinsic PEEP was very low in both study groups, and di

13 ratory circuit to produce a similar level of intrinsic PEEP.

14 rnal PEEP has little effect on the levels of intrinsic PEEP.

15  model may be useful for the future study of intrinsic PEEP and pulmonary mechanics.

16      In a subgroup of ARDS Network subjects, intrinsic PEEP was statistically significantly higher in

17 ents who failed NIV vs. those who succeeded, intrinsic PEEP was 3.5 (0.6) vs. 2.3 (0.8) cm H2O, inspi

18                                We found that intrinsic PEEP was higher among subjects randomized to t

19 ected if the external PEEP was less than the intrinsic PEEP in the lung model with flow limitation.